Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 20, 2006 P&Z Minutes .! ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 4 of 88 Rohm: Oh, there you go. And that's one of the two that will be continued and at this time I'd entertain a motion to continue these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 18th. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, both relating to Cedarcreek Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of May 18th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007 to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 18th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06~011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Continued Public Hearing from March 16,2006: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on continued AZ 06-013 related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and PP 06-011 and CUP 06-006, all related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, this is, as you said, the Canterbury Commons project. It's located on Pine east of Ten Mile, as shown on your vicinity map there. The project includes several applications. There is annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and a private street application and it also includes a variance application and, as you know, you won't be acting on that variance tonight, but we will give you an idea of what that is as we go along. To give you a little highlight of the development -- just a second. The site plan doesn't read very well, so I will just explain what's going on. There is a number of four-plex units that front ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 5 of 88 a private street system. The private streets come -- try not to blind that man. There we go. They come through here and around and, then, there is a public street system loop also and they have townhouses proposed along the public street system. So, the application includes the annexation and zoning of 21.77 acres. They are requesting R- 15 zoning on this property. The preliminary plat has a total of 122 residential lots. Now, 50 of those are four-plex lots and, then, 72 are townhouse dwellings. So, it's a total of 272 dwellings proposed. And they have ten common lots. The Conditional Use Permit is to construct the multi-family development, which, again, is the 200 dwelling units, 50 four-plexes. And the private street is for the multi-family, so that we can get addressing for those properties. And, finally, the variance request is to allow reduced lot sizes in the R-15 for the -- for the townhouse units. We have a minimum of 2,400 square feet for each of them. They are asking for a variance to go down to 1,900 square feet and they are also asking for a reduction to the standard 12-foot rear setback in the R-15 zone. They are asking for an 11 foot rear setback. I do have some elevations of the units tonight. Point out a couple of features. There is a drain on the northeast portion of the site and also the western boundary is another drain. These are the townhouse units. This is what would face the street, because they are front loaded. And, then, these are a couple of the different apartment elevations. That would be the smaller unit and that's the larger unit, I believe. The staff report has quite a lengthy analysis of this project. As it's presented, it doesn't appear to comply with either the UDC or the Comprehensive Plan, but staff has been reluctant to give you a recommendation on this project. They would like to give the applicant an opportunity to address some of these concerns. We did -- since the staff report has been prepared, we have gotten back a revised site plan and I'll try and tell you which concerns that revised site plan has met and which still seem to be some of the outstanding concerns. Just as a general one, there was some landscaping notes that Mr. Hood had made that I don't believe have been fully addressed yet. There is a question of the private usable open space and the applicant should clarify how that private usable open space is being met. We don't have the floor plans for the units, so we can't tell if they are providing that. So, we ask that the applicant clarify that. Regarding parking, the submitted site plan does not show the required covered parking spaces for the multi-family unit. It also doesn't show -- or not all the units are able to meet the 20-by-20 parking pad required for the townhouse units. So, again, the applicant should clarify how they intend to meet that requirement of the UDC. With regard to amenities, there is a sliding scale in the UDC. For example, for 75 units you need to have four quality-of-life amenities and those would be one from each category. So, that's quality of life, open space, recreation. At least one from each of those categories. After a hundred, it's up to the Commission to decide what the appropriate number of amenities are. So, in this case you have got 200 units and we will need some clarification from you as to what you feel are the appropriate amount of amenities. Right now this project has a 3,000 square foot community clubhouse and fitness facility. All the amenities are kind of centralized in this -- this central triangle here. That would be a quality of life amenity. There is property management office and maintenance storage area and a directory for the area and a pool. The pool would be a recreation amenity. There is a tot lot, another recreation amenity. As well as walking trails. And there is some additional open space. So, staff recommends that the Commission determine if the proposed amenities are sufficient for development of this Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 6 of 88 site and give the applicant direction regarding that. There are a number of internal pedestrian paths. Staff had recommended some additional pathways. These pathways have been depicted on the revised plat. Further, the applicant is showing a pathway along the Ten Mile stub drain. It appears that the pathway, though, is within the adjacent build-able lots, rather than on a separate common lot. So, we would like to see that still addressed. This is the Ten Mile drain. This -- the one in the northeast is the Eight Mile drain. And we would like to see those enhanced by leaving them open. I don't believe that we have specific details on how they are going to be developed just yet. Just as a note, because it's not addressed specifically, but the existing residences and buildings do cross proposed lot lines, so those would need to be removed. The multi-family setbacks -- the UDC doesn't have a specific requirement for setbacks from a private street. The applicant is proposing five feet in some cases from the edge of sidewalk. Staff is a little concerned that joint trench may not be able to get in that five feet Typically, they like to see ten feet. So, we would -- the applicant either needs to describe where they are going to get joint trench or they need to increase that if it's not going to be at the front of the building to ten feet. Refuse areas -- SSC had commented on the proposed dumpster locations. They have revised it and they have -- they are showing new dumpster locations. We are not sure if SSC has approved those new locations or not just yet. The Pine Avenue street buffer was raised in the staff report. The revised preliminary plat does depict the required street buffer within a common lot, rather than on the build-able lots. So, that one has been addressed. With regard to open space, the applicant states that there is 12.6 percent of the site is set aside for common open space. By staff calculations we are only getting to about 8.8 percent. So, the applicant needs to clarify how they are -- how they are calculating common open space and how that common outdoor open space is -- complies with the UDC. I guess the revised preliminary plat does show revised calculations and, then, they added some open space on the northwest corner, as well as the southwest corner of the site. But Mr. Hood notes that the applicant should explain where and how the open space requirements are being met. Let's see. There was some discrepancy between the preliminary plat site plan and landscape plan, but I think those have been addressed with the new revised plat. There was a question about the parking area on the northwest side of the development. That has been shortened to meet the fire department requirements, so that one has been addressed. Regarding the density, the revised preliminary plat shows 269 dwelling units, instead of 272. However, staff is still concerned with just the design of this, not necessarily the development. There have been some funny -- there was concern with -- let's see if I have the right -- there was concern with a unit at this end of the project. They have relocated it to this end in the middle of a four-plex unit in the middle of the townhouse project. So, there are definitely some issues still with the layout of the multi-family. I think I already mentioned the setbacks. And the final kind of design area that staff was concerned about is down here. It's very hard to see. There is one unit that's kind of surrounded by all this parking and asphalt and it's separated from the other ones. There is also -- the big stumbling block with the design from staff's perspective is that you have a public street here and you have the townhouses fronting this way and, then, you have the back side of the apartments right along that street, but, then, they have a private street. So, it's a very inefficient layout and would seem to have a lot more asphalt than perhaps it needs Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 7 of 88 to. With regard to the variance, staff is not recommending approval for that. We could not find that we could meet the findings for the variance. There is no special hardship on this property that would warrant having those reductions in the lot area or the rear setback. So, what staff would recommend tonight -- because there is so many outstanding issues, there is no way the Planning Commission could get through all the design issues in any reasonable amount of time, but we would suggest that you take public comment from those individuals that are here and, then, ask the applicant to redesign the site and bring it back, addressing all the public and staff concerns and any other concerns that the Commission may want to enumerate for them. With that I'll answer any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Wardle: Commission Members, my name is Geoffery Wardle. I am an attorney with Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley. We are counsel for the applicant American West Homes. And we have -- I'll go ahead and provide those to you. Rohm: Could we get you to state an address, too, please? Wardle: Yes. My address is 877 Main, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Suite 1000. In reviewing the staff report we are -- we are in general agreement with the comments that have been made by staff with respect to this project. The staff report that you received tonight, however, the oral report we don't think necessarily represents what were the comments that were provided to us in the written staff report. To note, first of all, this is a multi-family townhouse project with the intention of condominiumizing and coming forward with a final plat, a condominium plat, for the multi-family component. In looking at this site and looking at the zoning and looking at the surroundings, to the west you have higher density use and more commercial use heading towards Ten Mile. To the south you have the Union Pacific Railroad right of way. And along the southwest side you have the Ten Mile Drain. To the east you have a -- I believe an R-8 development. To better coordinate and better harmonize and make the transition from that, the proposals has come forward with townhouses on the east side of the property and with the multi-family condominium units to the west. Tonight we have here with us the applicant Joe Reesey and Matt Gordon of American West Homes, as well as Lance Warnick, who has handled the engineering on this project. And Mark Sanders has handled the architecture. And to the extent you have any technical questions, I would defer them to them. Like I said, we are in general agreement with staff's comments on this site. We have gone back and attempted to address the issues that have been raised. It's important to note that, obviously, we recognize that we must comply and come forward with an application which is consistent with the UDC. It is your code. It is our intention to do that. In doing that we do recognize that there was an omission in the submissions and that the covered parking was not included. We are not contending that we are not going to do covered parking as required by the UDC, rather, the plan that you have in front of you does depict where the parking is, it's just a matter of including that in later schematics. Additionally, with respect to amenities, we recognize Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 8 of 88 that it's discretionary on the part of the Commission to determine what amenities are required for this type of project. The applicant has attempted to come forward with a wide range of amenities from each of the categories required under the UDC and to provide the variety and necessity to address the needs of this project. We do appreciate the comments that Mr. Hood has provided previously and as you can see from the revised site plan, many of the concerns and issues that were raised with respect to the amenities were addressed. To the extent that there was concern in the south portion of the property with connectivity, through the multi-family component, that has been addressed with additional pathways. One comment that staff did raise is that, yes, along that Ten Mile Drain, as you can see, there is a pathway and it is not within a common lot. The reason it's not within a common lot is because it's impossible to meet the setbacks along there and the easement requirements if they were to be placed within a common lot. That will be included as a dedicated easement pursuant to either the plat, if that's what you choose to require, or as part of the condominium association declarations. Additionally, the revised preliminary plat and site plan, we believe, has addressed all of the issues with respect to the 20-by-20 parking pad requirement for the townhouses. We did take that back, we did attempt to comply with that. To the extent that there aren't -- or staff has found that there aren't 20-by-20 parking pads, that's certainly not an intention, it was an omission on our part and we do intend to comply with that. Additionally, when we deal with the interface between doing town -- a mixed component of product here with townhouses on the eastern portion, to better harmonize with the existing residential development to the east, and the multi-family condominium complex to the west, it does raise the issue that staff cites, namely, that you do have that row of townhouses there in the center, which does have frontage on a public road and parking on a private. As set forth in our comments, we recognize staff's concern, but as staff notes that it is appropriate and proper to use private roads in these type of multi-family projects. Typically, when you do a multi-family project like this, the multi- family units will take up the exterior of the property with the amenities, parking, and common area to the center. Where you attempt to mix it, like you have here, this is -- is something that is unavoidable, yet we believe that adequate conditions can be imposed and address the concerns that staff has, because, in reality, through landscaping and through the use of those amenity -- or whatever requirements you have on that eastern side of the property and across from the townhouses, it's not necessarily like that's the back of the building. As you can see over here, we have elevations depicting what has been proposed and what we intend to do with your approval, that these are units which do have significant architectural features and we committed to staff that multiple materials would be utilized and that there would be variation in product and design. We think that those go to address many of staff's concerns. Ultimately, this issue of double frontage can only be addressed with -- with a complete redesign of the development, because it is an issue that rises from the fact that you have a townhouse component and a multi-family condominium component. We don't think it's fatal. We don't think that the UDC prohibits it. And we do think that it's the best use of the property to provide the transition that staff has encouraged us to do. With respect to the open space calculation, we believe that there is adequate open space that's been set forth in the preliminary plat and the revised site plan and certainly our architectural and engineering staff can address how that's calculated and where it's located. Now, with Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 9 of 88 respect to staff comments, we appreciate their support for the product that's been proposed here. Our client has come forward with a product that they intend to offer for sale. This is not an apartment complex. This is intended to be owner-occupied housing and it's designed in this way to provide housing that is readily affordable for working families. These are not small one bedroom units. The townhouses are three bedroom units and the multi-family condominium units are two to three bedroom units, which provide private common space as required under the UDC in the form of balconies, in the form of porches, in the form of the types of amenities that individuals are looking for when they move into these types of units. It is also important to note that as we look at the design and we look at the issues here, we are only requesting one variance. In meeting with Mr. Hood and going over the UDC, the variance request with respect to rear setbacks in the townhouse component has been withdrawn. Mr. Hood pointed out to us how we could meet those setback requirements and what we could do with respect to the redesign that you have in front of you to address that. So, that variance is off the table. As for the other variance, we do recognize staff's concern. There has been a request on the townhouse lots, because 28 of the lots do not comply with the 2,400 square foot lot -- minimum lot size and the reason for that is simple. When you're dealing with interior units on these townhouses, if you don't have a lot that's at least 90 feet deep, you can't get 2,400 square feet. Now, the footprint for each and every one of these townhouses is exactly the same, it's just the fact those interior lots in certain areas don't -- aren't deep enough to be able to let you get to 28 feet -- to get to the 88 to 90 feet like you need to have 2,400 square feet. Now, that's largely a function of the setback requirements, the amount of right of way that has to be dedicated for the public -- for the public -- for ACHD for the public roads and it has to do with preserving the integrity of the common area in the center of the project. Now, we certainly think that it would be appropriate for you tonight to approve this project with conditions to address the staff's concerns. We believe that we have attempted to do that and we believe that, actually, Mr. Hood in his revised staff report, which came out earlier this week, recognized that and pointed that out. Additionally, when we look at this project, we recognize that this is an enclave within the City of Meridian, that the property to the north, south, east and west has all been annexed. And we recognize that we do have to come forward with a project which is in harmony with the surrounding uses. The proposed -- the proposal you have in front of you tonight we believe does that. It provides a mixture of uses, it proVides a mixture of product type and a mixture of price points, but most importantly it provides both Single-family and multi-family use, which we believe is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, has indicated, we certainly are amenable to whatever conditions you think need to be addressed and imposed to address the concerns that staff has tonight. We have worked diligently with staff over the course of the last year to come up with a product type here at this site that is acceptable to the city and conforms with your codes. And with that I'd stand for any questions and I would be more than happy to bring up a member of our design team to have them address any concerns you may have. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 1 0 of 88 Moe: Mr. Chairman. Just a couple things. As far as SSC, did you guys discuss the trash location and whatnot with them on your -- is this the revised plan here? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, yes, this here is the revised plan and we did take staff's -- staff's recommendation to address the trash. I don't necessarily know if engineering staff discussed it with SSC, but we certainly did attempt to come up and utilize the design that staff required. So, to the extent I need to refer to our engineering staff to answer that -- Moe: Let me ask another question first. Wardle: Okay. Moe: In regards to the public street where the -- that would be condominiums back up to the street; is that correct? Wardle: That is correct. Moe: And town homes are in front? Do you have a rear elevation of those condominiums, then, that would face that street? I was just curious to see what that would be. Wardle: I believe in the packet there is rear elevation. That's the townhouse rear elevation. That's the rear elevation of the multi-family component with the elevations and materials depicted down here below. Moe: Okay. That's it for me right now. Rohm: I have a question for you. On the pathways along the west line of the property, you said -- and maybe I didn't get this right, so I'd like you to talk about that pathway a little bit more. You say the pathway lies within the lots themselves and there is an easement back to -- who is the easement granted to? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, as depicted on the revised site plan, you can see the pathway along the Ten Mile Drain. Staff is correct. That path is located within the lots located to the north of that. We believe that -- well, first of all, we are not counting that. That pathway is not being counted towards the common open space requirements. So, we are not offering that as an amenity to meet that requirement, because, obviously, it's located within the lot and it can't be counted towards that. But we do believe that through the use of an easement, either on the plat or in a separate instrument or in the condominium declaration in favor of the residence and if there is connectivity and you seek to impose the condition that it's open to the public, it certainly can be. That's the way we propose to address that, because we think that it provides an excellent amenity. We have no intention of tiling either the Eight Mile Canal -- Eight Mile Lateral or the Ten Mile Drain. We do believe, as depicted on the northeast side of the property, that the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 11 of 88 pathways located there are appropriate under your code and that's what we attempted to do. Rohm: I don't remember ever seeing a pathway presented that way before and I just -- in my mind it really seems like it's something that would be part of your CC&Rs or something, but it wouldn't be something that would be part of this package, in my mind, because it's not a dedicated pathway to the city or it's not on a common lot and it just seems like it's kind of an agreement between neighbors that we can cross this -- Wardle: And, Mr. Chairman, that's the way it would be prepared and preserved, because if it were created on a common lot, then, obviously, there are setback issues there that have to be met and, in fact, can't be met, because of the existing easement for maintenance of the Ten Mile Drain and with those. So, we felt that while it's not counted towards the common area -- the public common area or the private -- or the private common area, because it's on individual lots, that it certainly provides connectivity through the project and it can be handled via an easement either on the condominium plat or via a declaration or separate instrument. Rohm: Okay. I think we need to talk about the common area percentage a little bit more, but before we go to that, if any other Commissioners have any questions of this applicant before we ask your engineer to come forward -- Newton-Huckabay: I have one, Mr. Chair. I was just curious. How large are the town -- or not the townhomes, the multi-family units? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the multi-family units are two or three bedroom units, anywhere from, I believe, 900 to 1,300 square feet. I'd have to ask my client to come up and confirm that, but that's my understanding. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Would you go ahead -- Wardle: Sure. Rohm: -- and ask your engineer to come up and -- Wardle: Yeah. We'll have Mr. Warnick come up and discuss the common area calculation. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Oh. Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Maybe we could take public testimony first, do you think? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 12 of 88 Rohm: Well, I'd like -- no, let's go ahead and -- Warnick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Lance Warnick. My address is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. To answer your questions about common area, I think the best way to do it is to identify the specific common lots and their associated areas and they do correspond with the revised plan that you have in front of you. Rohm: Before you do that, did you and Mr. Hood communicate on this issue? Because it seems to be a disconnect here and I need to know that staff is aware of your calculations, just -- Warnick: I personally did not. The gentleman from my office, Greg Anderson, did meet with the city and came back and has revised the plan to show the new areas here. It's my understanding it's based in the staff report that Mr. Hood did not have a lot of time to review that prior to completing the application and that's why I think they have made that statement that they want us to explain it to you tonight. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Warnick: The common area calculations are composed of six lots. Starting over here in the upper northwest corner -- see if I can get this turned on. This is common Lot 2. There we go. Common Lot 2 in Block 1 has an area of 26,815 feet and in that lot there is a pathway and there is also a green open space to provide some recreational opportunities. The second common lot that we are including is, actually, Common Lot 40, which is the large area in the center of the site that includes the pool, the clubhouse, and also additional grassed areas for recreation. That has an area of -- that has an area of 60,265 feet. The next lot that's included is this grassy area located down here. You're running out of batteries on this thing. Excuse me. Lot 31 -- Lot 31 has an area of 4,540 feet in this location. The fourth area is in the northeast corner. It also has a pathway and also the water feature on that side. The area of that lot has 17,223 feet. If you would like, I can give you a copy of this little sheet afterwards, so you can see the map, if that's helpful for you. Rohm: That's -- okay. Thank you. Warnick: Okay. The fifth area is, actually, Lot 34 of Block 2, down in the southwest corner. Has an area 6,822 feet. Again, it's a green open area, more of some interspersed recreational area. And the final lot is this lot that is in the middle of the townhouse area. We have green space on the north, green space on the south, and a connecting pedestrian path between them and that area has 18,840 feet. As you sum those areas, you get 134,505 feet, which is approximately 3.09 acres, which is that same common area depicted on the plat down in the development table. You take that, divide it by the total area that does not include the road adjacent to Pine Street, 20.32 and it gives you a total percent open space of 15.2 percent. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 13 of 88 Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Excuse me. You said minus the area on Pine? Warnick: Yeah. The one difference that I do, as opposed to the annexation, when we annex we have to annex to the center of the roadway. Currently there is a portion of the roadway that's already dedicated to ACHD, so I'm not including that portion that's already dedicated in my area, even though it is included in this annexation request. Rohm: Thank you. Warnick: Thank you. Rohm: Any additional questions of the applicant before we move onto public testimony? Moe: Mr. Chairman, one thing that -- and you may be able to answer this -- I'm a little bit concerned about is the variance and as you spoke earlier you were basically concerned on lot size, as well as setbacks and everything else. My concern is did you guys, basically, get designed out and, then, realize that we might have a problem and, therefore, you weren't sure how you were going to get you more open space? I'm concerned that there was a problem after the fact this was drawn out and now the variance needs to be done to basically be in compliance and I was just kind of wondering why we didn't maybe reduce some of these buildings and put some more open space at that point? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, as indicated we are not asking for a variance on setbacks. That has been addressed by staff. They pointed out how we had miscalculated some distances and that's been cured. The variance has to do with the size of those interior townhome lots and they are 27 feet wide, because that's the width of the townhome. And on 28 of those 72 townhouse lots they are less than 89 feet deep and the issue with depth is why the variance is needed. Now, we have requested the variance not because of any difficulty with setbacks, not because of any difficulty with compliance, our client made a decision in evaluating this project, recognized that the Comprehensive Plan could have permitted at this site a much denser zone, which would not have had these lot minimums. The C-40 zone -- I mean the R-40 zone under the UDC does not have a lot minimum. But rather than come in with that high of density, where, ultimately, the density would have been built the same at 15 units to the acre as proposed, our client came forward and made the variance request just because of the nature of building town homes. Now, that is, obviously, an issue that will have to be addressed pursuant to that variance. I can assure you, though, it wasn't an issue where we designed it and, then, came back and said, oh, we have a problem, it's an issue that when you design a townhome that you can't make it all fit. Yes. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 14 of 88 Wardle: And one last -- if I may respond to one last issue, which I failed to. Staff did raise the issue of five foot setbacks along some of the four-plex condominium units and in coming forward with the revised site plan you have in front of you tonight, Treasure Valley Engineering did come forward, did reevaluate that and has proposed an eight foot setback. Now, it's important to note that we have complied with the setbacks required under the UDC and we certainly recognize Public Works' concern about the joint trench and where you put the water meters. So, we think it's workable in light of the spacing between the units, to the extent that you may have to put some of those facilities to the side of the units, as opposed to necessarily right in front of it, but we have expanded that to eight feet from five. So, we believe that should address most of the concerns articulated by staff. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Mark Sanders. Sanders: Mark Sanders. 499 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We are the architects for the project. I don't think I have anymore to add than Mr. Wardle did. Other than Mr. Reesey came in to see us last summer and was interested in buying this site and wanted to put a building -- some buildings on here that we had had previous success with and all three of these building types have been built across Idaho. Several of the four-plex style condos have been built here in the valley in several communities and the townhouses we have done up in Coeur d'Alene and as far as I know they have both typically been pretty successful where ever they are built and we are sold out very quickly before they are built. Rohm: I didn't realize that you were part of the development team, so -- Sanders: Oh. Excuse me. Rohm: For all intents and purposes that was just additional testimony that's not necessarily required. Thank you. Sanders: Yeah. I don't have much to add to what Mr. Wardle said. I think he covered all the issues from our side. Thank you. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application? Okay. Thank you. Before we move on, I'd like to just kind of take a poll of the Commission and get some thoughts and I'd like to start with Commissioner Moe. This is the first time. Moe: You bet. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, after going through a review of the staff report and whatnot, I -- number one, I am in agreement to at least go back and get quite a few of these things cleaned up. As I hear tonight, I know that the applicant has, again, met with staff and have taken care of some of these items, but I think we are well along to needing additional information to staff to take care of that. In regards to the amenities after the engineer has kind of gone through where the open space is, I'm not sure where you would put any other amenities. I, quite frankly, would like to see a little Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 15 of 88 bit additional amenities, you know, per the square footage of the area we are discussing, but I'm not just sure what that would be at the present time. Rohm: I agree with that. Moe: So, therefore, I guess my point would be at some point I'd like to find out from the applicant when they could possibly be ready to go back to staff and get this reviewed, so that we could, then, set a date certain for another hearing. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have a comment? Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a pointer? Okay. My comments are generally -- I think -- it's -- when I do anything with my right hand it never works. This four-plex -- this lot here I find a little awkward. I don't think it flows with the townhomes very well. I tend to agree with the director, I -- as I envision how this would look when it's done, I think it would be one of those situations where you drive down it and go, well, who was on the Planning and Zoning Commission when they approved that and I don't really like the way that flows. I think I would like to see maybe townhomes or something would be nice there fronting with the town -- the back of the townhomes fronting the development. Lot 30 down here, again, I think that's awkward placement there and I just create it -- we have a whole -- a whole lot of asphalt going on in here that I just don't really care for. And, then, the only other thing I think would be - amenity wise maybe something like a basketball court or something like that. If you have -- I calculate about 1,000 people that would be living, approximately, in this area, I think -- and there may have been one on there and I just didn't see it. I think something like that might be a nice amenity to have -- there is plenty of green space. I think one could be added in. But I do think that something like a basketball court would be a nice addition. And that is the end of my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Similar comments to those that the previous Commissioners have expressed. I think I'm satisfied with the open space calculation, but within those open spaces I could see the addition of a half court basketball court or volleyball courts or maybe a tot lot one place or another or a barbecue area on the ones that are farther away from the clubhouse, but still visible in such a way that children would not be playing in a place that's not visible. And if it is a half court -- basketball court or volleyball court, that it would not be lit at night. But I think those additions would be a good idea. I agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. In this middle section that has a front and the back on a private street one side and a public street on the other, it would make sense to me to have it be the same product that is across the street on the other side and just move that transition half a block to the west, essentially. Most of the other issues that staff has raised I agree with. As for the variance on the size of the lots, my comment would be that the development of the new Unified Development Code took about three years from the acceptance of the Comprehensive Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 16 of 88 Plan with very intense work during the last year and a half. Sizes in all of the different zones were discussed very thoroughly. There was a lot of public input. A lot of developer input. The sizes of the lots for each of the zones was picked with the thought that we would stop having these variance applications and stick to them. It was extremely common before the adoption of the new Unified Development Code, probably two out of three applications requested a variance in lot size or multiple variances in lot sizes and we had that very much in mind when we redesigned the Unified Development Code. I'm satisfied that the Unified Development Code got it correct. And I don't think we should have the same attitude about the variances on lot sizes that we had before the new UDC. The requirement is that there must be some extreme hardship, which would mean that, you know, the Ten Mile Drain or whatever it is runs square through the middle of the property or there is Table Rock right in the middle of the property. Those would be hardships. Just trying to get a couple extra lots in is not a hardship as far as the UDC is concerned. So, I would support staff's request that the lots comply with the zone. The only other issue I would raise is I believe we still do not have the Ada County Highway District report or approval and for that reason I would continue it also. Rohm: Okay. I think to summarize the comments of the Commission, basically, there is still work to be done and I think that if we were to act on this project tonight we'd have to either make a motion to forward it on recommending either denial or passage with a whole slough of changes to the design and, quite honestly, I don't believe that we should be in the design business. I think that that's part of the work that is to be done by the applicant. So, I think at this point in time what I would like to do is have the applicant come back up and we will ask if there is a date certain that they'd like to continue to and if that's not acceptable, then, we will act based upon the information we have currently got before us. Just one of you. I just need one. Reesey: Good evening, folks. My name is Joe Reesey and I'm the president of American West Homes. Address is 295 Front Street, Suite 250, Boise. I have been a developer for 31 years. We are just -- we bought a house and we are just moving here after school let's out. I started my company in Nevada and, then, moved to Arizona. Been developing in central California for about three years and we fell in love with the Treasure Valley and we are moving here. And we have already bought our house and built our office downtown in Boise. This design is born of a year's worth redesigns and largely due to about a two hour meeting I had with Mayor Tammy de Weerd in terms of what the City of Meridian really needs, what she thought it really needed and the biggest concern was the lack of affordable housing for the critical workforce and we have been in-fill builders now for 31 years and it's been our sincere desire to be able to provide housing that in a critical workforce, people like teachers and -- you know, and -- Rohm: And thank you, sir. We -- what I -- all I need from you is whether or not you want us to continue or act on this based upon the testimony received. Reesey: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 17 of 88 Rohm: And that's all we need. Reesey: We would be happy to redesign or address any issues that are brought up as concerns and bring it back. We think we could have that work done within 30 days. Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you. Reecey: Thank you all for all the time that you have given us tonight. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. All right. So, we are -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just would want to -- can I make one request that -- when we get the elevations with the redesign, I would just like a copy that I could see that's colored, if that would be possible when they come back. Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: It's a little hard for me to see the elevations over there. Rohm: And one of the things that we tried to encourage all applicants -- when you make a presentation, if you will submit to staff jpegs or bit map on a CD or a jump stick or some method for them to present those and display them up above, it makes it a lot easier for us to depict that for the audience as a whole. So, when you come back bring them as jpegs or on a CD if you would, please. Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Considering the applicant's offer that it would be roughly 30 days or a month to complete their meeting with staff and doing their own redesign, my question to Director Canning would be to establish the date to continue this meeting to, do we need an additional ten days for staff that -- the hearing should be ten days after they are through with that 30 days. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Zaremba, my concern is that for that hearing Caleb has already taken on two huge projects and he's effectively our only planner until we can get our planner trained. So, I'm just concerned that the 18th would not be an appropriate date. We may need to put it to the first hearing in June just because I know he's got two huge projects for the 18th already. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 18 of 88 Zaremba: That's, actually, what I was aiming for. If we went 30 days from now and, then, added ten days, we would be at-- Canning: The first hearing in June. Zaremba: -- a few days one side or the other of the first meeting in June. Rohm: Well, it's of little value to continue it without having an opportunity come to a consensus, so I think what I'm hearing is June 1 is a date certain and I'd certainly entertain a motion to that effect. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion to continue Items AZ 06-013, PP 06- 011, and CUP 06-006, all relating to Canterbury Commons, to our regularly scheduled meeting of June 1st, 2006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Item AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 16,2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Rohm: And thank you all for your testimony. It was much appreciated. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing of AZ 06-008 relating to South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance annexation and begin with the staff report Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, this is the Eagle -- South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Project and, surprisingly enough it's located on South Eagle and Victory Road. There we go. And it does extend south of Victory Road as shown. I did want to remind the Commission before we get started that this had been on your agenda before and it got to be very late on your last agenda and you did go ahead and open up the hearing. Some of the folks that are here tonight may have left thinking that you wouldn't have heard that hearing, so we just want to make it clear to everyone tonight that although the applicant made a presentation and there was one member of the public that spoke that night, that we were -- we are starting over again tonight. So, staff will make their presentation, the applicant will remake their presentation, and we would ask that the one member of the public that testified, please, do testify again. We consider this as a brand new Public Hearing for this and no